Message Boards

Topic : 11/21 Same-Sex Marriage?

Number of Replies: 2026

New Messages This Week: 0

Last Reply On:

Created on : Friday, November 14, 2008, 03:19:49 pm

Author : DrPhilBoard1

It’s a hot-button topic in California and around the country: The passage of Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of this initiative voted to preserve the sanctity of marriage solely between a man and a woman. Opponents of Prop 8 say it violates the constitutional rights of the gay community and that America’s laws should treat everyone equally. Since Election Day, numerous protests and rallies have been organized to overturn the law, and the debates are getting heated regarding this highly personal and controversial topic. Dr. Phil’s guests debate their opposing points of view: Discrimination attorney Gloria Allred, president of the Human Rights Campaign Joe Solmonese, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Pastor Jim Garlow, president of National Organization of Marriage Maggie Gallagher and co-campaign manager for the Yes on 8 Campaign Jeff Flint. Whatever your beliefs, you won’t want to miss this show! Share your thoughts, join the discussion.

Do you have a strong opinion on this debate? E-mail Dr. Phil and speak out about the same-sex marriage show!

As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

The Non-sequitur of the week goes to.....

Sorry that you are offended by the truth but in the late 1800s the US Suprme Court did a 10-year study & concluded citing voluminous evidence that the US is a "Chrisitan nation." I do not personally agree with this finding either, but that was their official position. Obviously they have changed their collective mind. It is also a matter of historical record that men indeed deliberately covenanted with God in founding this nation.

Jamestown, VA in 1607 where setlers planted a cross immediately on landing & dedicated the land they stood on to the one & only true God revealed in His Son Jesus Christ is one instance. There are many instances in early US historical documents of federal & state acknowledgement of God's role in the governing of the US. This is the reason there has always been a chaplain to give prayer before sessions of congress.

The word "homosexual" is indeed not in the Bible. So what??? As a matter of fact it first came into usage only several hundred years ago.

Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

You seem confused, my dear. I'm the one who posted the truth about the US not being a christain nation in any way, shape, or form. I even provided documentation to that effect. You countered with unconfirmed speculation, historical revision based on nothing, and non-sequitur. Let me clarify for you again: The US is not, nor has ever been, a christian nation. There is no legal documentation to that effect, declaring the US a christain nation. The US is a representational secular, pluralistic republic. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Jamestown was also not a christain colony. It was founded by the London Comapny (later known as the Virginia Company) for the glory of King James. And likely the Royal Treasury, as well. Your claims to the contrary are not supported by actual history, despite what Pat Robertson may be spewing. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Benkert in Germany. Thus, your claim of "several hundred years ago" is incorrect. The actual point in my post was that a word coined in 1869 could not, to a snae person, appear in the Bible, written approx. 2 millennia ante hoc. So much for the "inerrant, unchanging" word of your deity. My other point was that your made-up word "homosexualism" is not a word. It also bears nop referntial value and is therefore meaningless. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The SCOTUS's job is not, and has never been, to do a "study." The job of the SCOPTUS is to interpret the law and rule summarily on the law. Basic civics. And as you avoided posting a cite for your claim, it is rendered moot.

For these reasons, and your errors in reality, your post has no bearing whatsoever on the facts. In addition, it is hypocritical to argue that unsubstantiated claims, such as the easily disproven "supreme court did a survey" rant above, Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Now, if you choose to respond, that is also your right. However -- if you veer off topic again and/or resort to unsubstantiated claims/outright lies again, not germane to the topic at hand, I will report your post and demand that it be removed.

So -- got a legally compelling reason to deny your fellow Americans their civil right to marriage in this SECULAR republic? Capice?

Useless

You seem confused, my dear. I'm the one who posted the truth about the US not being a christain nation in any way, shape, or form. I even provided documentation to that effect. You countered with unconfirmed speculation, historical revision based on nothing, and non-sequitur. Let me clarify for you again: The US is not, nor has ever been, a christian nation. There is no legal documentation to that effect, declaring the US a christain nation. The US is a representational secular, pluralistic republic. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Jamestown was also not a christain colony. It was founded by the London Comapny (later known as the Virginia Company) for the glory of King James. And likely the Royal Treasury, as well. Your claims to the contrary are not supported by actual history, despite what Pat Robertson may be spewing. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Benkert in Germany. Thus, your claim of "several hundred years ago" is incorrect. The actual point in my post was that a word coined in 1869 could not, to a snae person, appear in the Bible, written approx. 2 millennia ante hoc. So much for the "inerrant, unchanging" word of your deity. My other point was that your made-up word "homosexualism" is not a word. It also bears nop referntial value and is therefore meaningless. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The SCOTUS's job is not, and has never been, to do a "study." The job of the SCOPTUS is to interpret the law and rule summarily on the law. Basic civics. And as you avoided posting a cite for your claim, it is rendered moot.

For these reasons, and your errors in reality, your post has no bearing whatsoever on the facts. In addition, it is hypocritical to argue that unsubstantiated claims, such as the easily disproven "supreme court did a survey" rant above, Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Now, if you choose to respond, that is also your right. However -- if you veer off topic again and/or resort to unsubstantiated claims/outright lies again, not germane to the topic at hand, I will report your post and demand that it be removed.

So -- got a legally compelling reason to deny your fellow Americans their civil right to marriage in this SECULAR republic? Capice?

Every claim I made can be sustabtuated. I did not "rant" - you lied about that. I am no "revisionist." The post I wrote in reply was removed apparantly without explanation - it gave online resources that would prove the truth of what I wrote. However, it seems that your claims are what are officially approved whether true or not. I could list many quotes here from founding fathers (all verified as genuine & true) that refer directly to belief in the Deity as necessary to the proper functioning of government, but since your opinion seems to bear more weight than the facts I state it obviously would bve a waste of time. Links I put here ro online resources are apparently also not allowed. Since what I am writing here you apparenlty have the power & influence to have removed because it differs from your opinion & your decision that it is "off-topic" I do not expect to see "accepted" by the sites' censors.

The historical "facts" you state can of course be "verified" because the actual truth has been revised & is not available in any public school. I provided links to resources online where the facts are readily available, but that was apparenly censored (at your repuest?). I would pose you a question: do you admit the validity of the claim of the "greatness" of the US & its place in history & its influence on the world & the desire of multitudes to emigrate to it - legally or illegally? If so, to what do you ascribe the reason for this? I know you cannot answer that because (1) it does not coincide with the "topic" being discussed in thiese posts & (2) the ONLY proper & true explanation is that the founders covenanted with God.

You can continue to falsely label my statements as "lies" & have this post removed (perhaps it will not be even allowed by the site at all). I titled this as "useless": & I know writing it was a waste of time. The truth is no longer desired here or elsewhere in this nation just as the Bible stated the time would come when the truth would called lies & lies would be called truth.

Have your way for now - God will have the "last laugh: eventually (Psalm 2:4)

More projection and useless verbiage from ...

Every claim I made can be sustabtuated. I did not "rant" - you lied about that. I am no "revisionist." The post I wrote in reply was removed apparantly without explanation - it gave online resources that would prove the truth of what I wrote. However, it seems that your claims are what are officially approved whether true or not. I could list many quotes here from founding fathers (all verified as genuine & true) that refer directly to belief in the Deity as necessary to the proper functioning of government, but since your opinion seems to bear more weight than the facts I state it obviously would bve a waste of time. Links I put here ro online resources are apparently also not allowed. Since what I am writing here you apparenlty have the power & influence to have removed because it differs from your opinion & your decision that it is "off-topic" I do not expect to see "accepted" by the sites' censors.

The historical "facts" you state can of course be "verified" because the actual truth has been revised & is not available in any public school. I provided links to resources online where the facts are readily available, but that was apparenly censored (at your repuest?). I would pose you a question: do you admit the validity of the claim of the "greatness" of the US & its place in history & its influence on the world & the desire of multitudes to emigrate to it - legally or illegally? If so, to what do you ascribe the reason for this? I know you cannot answer that because (1) it does not coincide with the "topic" being discussed in thiese posts & (2) the ONLY proper & true explanation is that the founders covenanted with God.

You can continue to falsely label my statements as "lies" & have this post removed (perhaps it will not be even allowed by the site at all). I titled this as "useless": & I know writing it was a waste of time. The truth is no longer desired here or elsewhere in this nation just as the Bible stated the time would come when the truth would called lies & lies would be called truth.

Have your way for now - God will have the "last laugh: eventually (Psalm 2:4)

Ah, so you admit that you lied about your claims, as you have provided no prof or substantiation. Furthermore, you have refused to address the topic at hand (marriage equality) and are unable to post a compelling legal reason to deny your fellow US citizens their equal access to civil rights. Ergo, you do not have a compelling legal reason to deny your fellow US citizens their equal access to civil rights.I would strongly encourage you to re-examine your previous post (before it is removed) witrh this definition in mind:

Main Entry: 2rant

Function: noun

Date: 1649

1 a: a bombastic extravagant speech b: bombastic extravagant language

Your overt threat of eternal damnation against me does qualify as "bombastic language," just FYI. When you feel you are able to substantiate your unproven claims and converse as an adult, please feel free to respond. I will be more thasn happy to discuss the topic at hand, which is equal access for all in the US to the civil right of legal marriage.

Disapointed in Dr Phil

I know I am probably way behind in shows as I just watched the what happened after the show today here in Australia, What I would like to say Dr Phil I am quiet disapointed in your stance on the situation I believe you seemed to be leaning towards agreement of same sex marriage and as a christian in your position that is quite disturbing. I have nothing against gay people and believe that God loves them and Jesus died for them as much as He did for everyone else, christians are no better than non christians or homosexuals in fact its been my experience that miracles always seem to be greater for the non believers anyway I dont want to preach, my point is marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman and an institution that God puts together. I felt that you did not give the people against it a voice and when the African American woman got really mad for comparing the struggle of blacks with this she was basically just cut out and I see her point its shocking that gay marriage and civil rights of human beings are being compared. Dr Phil it was quiet disapointing that at the end of the show you showed Jack Black and John C Riley mocking Jesus. I think you should remember that Chirst says if you deny before man I will deny you before my Father.

Have you drank your own confusion

You seem confused, my dear. I'm the one who posted the truth about the US not being a christain nation in any way, shape, or form. I even provided documentation to that effect. You countered with unconfirmed speculation, historical revision based on nothing, and non-sequitur. Let me clarify for you again: The US is not, nor has ever been, a christian nation. There is no legal documentation to that effect, declaring the US a christain nation. The US is a representational secular, pluralistic republic. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Jamestown was also not a christain colony. It was founded by the London Comapny (later known as the Virginia Company) for the glory of King James. And likely the Royal Treasury, as well. Your claims to the contrary are not supported by actual history, despite what Pat Robertson may be spewing. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The word "homosexual" was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Benkert in Germany. Thus, your claim of "several hundred years ago" is incorrect. The actual point in my post was that a word coined in 1869 could not, to a snae person, appear in the Bible, written approx. 2 millennia ante hoc. So much for the "inerrant, unchanging" word of your deity. My other point was that your made-up word "homosexualism" is not a word. It also bears nop referntial value and is therefore meaningless. Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

The SCOTUS's job is not, and has never been, to do a "study." The job of the SCOPTUS is to interpret the law and rule summarily on the law. Basic civics. And as you avoided posting a cite for your claim, it is rendered moot.

For these reasons, and your errors in reality, your post has no bearing whatsoever on the facts. In addition, it is hypocritical to argue that unsubstantiated claims, such as the easily disproven "supreme court did a survey" rant above, Facts are facts - if you choose not to accept them, that is your right.

Now, if you choose to respond, that is also your right. However -- if you veer off topic again and/or resort to unsubstantiated claims/outright lies again, not germane to the topic at hand, I will report your post and demand that it be removed.

So -- got a legally compelling reason to deny your fellow Americans their civil right to marriage in this SECULAR republic? Capice?

You seem to be drunk in confusion, she said that the US was indeed a Christian nation. It is just that and still remains. Over 87% of American subscribe to some form of Christianity and this does not include Judaism and Islam. As a matter of fact, Atheism and Agnostism seem to be a mist with a combined 1% representation.

I lived in Bangladesh for a spell and that nation is 95% Muslim, 4% Hindu and 1% Chrisitan. As a Christian my childish ranting cannot change that fact and neither can yours. In neighboring India, it is 95% Hindu, 4% Muslim and 1% Christian.

Are you gay or just prone to gay rantings, like I will report you and demand this and that...

The fact that the word "homosexuality was not orignally found in the bible, is only relevant to you, because English was not originally found in the bible. That means that the bible was translated and the translation and definition "man is not to lie with mankind as with womankind" means that homosexuality was always in the bible.

The bible does not mention Europeans, Americans, Indians which are from India not America, etc.

What is SCOPTUS?

This is a fact, try to argue it down. Harry Hay, a homosexual pedophile, founded the GLBT and he strongly supported NAMBLA. To date, the gay community has not chosen to start a different association apart from the GLBT, which include homosexual pedophiles at NAMBLA..

Try to come up with a legal reason for same-sex marriage, that is not laced with your immoral opinions and discrimination of pedophile's who wish to marry children between 12 and 17, adult incest couples, and polygamist.

Admission

Ah, so you admit that you lied about your claims, as you have provided no prof or substantiation. Furthermore, you have refused to address the topic at hand (marriage equality) and are unable to post a compelling legal reason to deny your fellow US citizens their equal access to civil rights. Ergo, you do not have a compelling legal reason to deny your fellow US citizens their equal access to civil rights.I would strongly encourage you to re-examine your previous post (before it is removed) witrh this definition in mind:

Main Entry:2rant

Function: noun

Date: 1649

1 a: a bombastic extravagant speech b: bombastic extravagant language

Your overt threat of eternal damnation against me does qualify as "bombastic language," just FYI. When you feel you are able to substantiate your unproven claims and converse as an adult, please feel free to respond. I will be more thasn happy to discuss the topic at hand, which is equal access for all in the US to the civil right of legal marriage.

I'm glad to see that you are admitting that you have been lying. You refuse to address the topic, which is opposite sex marriage, between one man and one woman and how that is exactly equal. I see that you compare yourself struggles with the pedophiles struggle for acceptance.